The well-publicized debate at the Creation Museum was not about two minds sparring.

In 1878, the American scholar and minister Sebastian Adams put the final touches on the third edition of his grandest project: a massive Synchronological Chart that covers nothing less than the entire history of the world in parallel, with the deeds of kings and kingdoms running along together in rows over 25 horizontal feet of paper. When the chart reaches 1500 BCE, its level of detail becomes impressive; at 400 CE it becomes eyebrow-raising; at 1300 CE it enters the realm of the wondrous. No wonder, then, that in their 2013 book Cartographies of Time: A History of the Timeline, authors Daniel Rosenberg and Anthony Grafton call Adams' chart "nineteenth-century America's surpassing achievement in complexity and synthetic power... a great work of outsider thinking."

The chart is also the last thing that visitors to Kentucky's Creation Museum see before stepping into the gift shop, where full-sized replicas can be purchased for $40.

Further Reading

That's because, in the world described by the museum, Adams' chart is more than a historical curio; it remains an accurate timeline of world history. Time is said to have begun in 4004 BCE with the creation of Adam, who went on to live for 930 more years. In 2348 BCE, the Earth was then reshaped by a worldwide flood, which created the Grand Canyon and most of the fossil record even as Noah rode out the deluge in an 81,000 ton wooden ark. Pagan practices at the eight-story high Tower of Babel eventually led God to cause a "confusion of tongues" in 2247 BCE, which is why we speak so many different languages today.

Adams notes on the second panel of the chart that "all the history of man, before the flood, extant, or known to us, is found in the first six chapters of Genesis."

Ken Ham agrees. Ham, CEO of Answers in Genesis (AIG), has become perhaps the foremost living young Earth creationist in the world. He has authored more books and articles than seems humanly possible and has built AIG into a creationist powerhouse. He also made national headlines when the slickly modern Creation Museum opened in 2007.

He has also been looking for the opportunity to debate a prominent supporter of evolution.

And so it was that, as a severe snow and sleet emergency settled over the Cincinnati region, 900 people climbed into cars and wound their way out toward the airport to enter the gates of the Creation Museum. They did not come for the petting zoo, the zip line, or the seasonal camel rides, nor to see the animatronic Noah chortle to himself about just how easy it had really been to get dinosaurs inside his Ark. They did not come to see The Men in White, a 22-minute movie that plays in the museum's halls in which a young woman named Wendy sees that what she's been taught about evolution "doesn't make sense" and is then visited by two angels who help her understand the truth of six-day special creation. They did not come to see the exhibits explaining how all animals had, before the Fall of humanity into sin, been vegetarians.

Further Reading

They came to see Ken Ham debate TV presenter Bill Nye the Science Guy—an old-school creation v. evolution throwdown for the Powerpoint age. Even before it began, the debate had been good for both men. Traffic to AIG's website soared by 80 percent, Nye appeared on CNN, tickets sold out in two minutes, and post-debate interviews were lined up with Piers Morgan Live and MSNBC.

While plenty of Ham supporters filled the parking lot, so did people in bow ties and "Bill Nye is my Homeboy" T-shirts. They all followed the stamped dinosaur tracks to the museum's entrance, where a pack of AIG staffers wearing custom debate T-shirts stood ready to usher them into "Discovery Hall."

Security at the Creation Museum is always tight; the museum's security force is made up of sworn (but privately funded) Kentucky peace officers who carry guns, wear flat-brimmed state trooper-style hats, and operate their own K-9 unit. For the debate, Nye and Ham had agreed to more stringent measures. Visitors passed through metal detectors complete with secondary wand screenings, packages were prohibited in the debate hall itself, and the outer gates were closed 15 minutes before the debate began.

Inside the hall, packed with bodies and the blaze of high-wattage lights, the temperature soared. The empty stage looked—as everything at the museum does—professionally designed, with four huge video screens, custom debate banners, and a pair of lecterns sporting Mac laptops. 20 different video crews had set up cameras in the hall, and 70 media organizations had registered to attend. More than 10,000 churches were hosting local debate parties. As AIG technical staffers made final preparations, one checked the YouTube-hosted livestream—242,000 people had already tuned in before start time.

An AIG official took the stage eight minutes before start time. "We know there are people who disagree with each other in this room," he said. "No cheering or—please—any disruptive behavior."

At 6:59pm, the music stopped and the hall fell silent but for the suddenly prominent thrumming of the air conditioning. For half a minute, the anticipation was electric, all eyes fixed on the stage, and then the countdown clock ticked over to 7:00pm and the proceedings snapped to life. Nye, wearing his traditional bow tie, took the stage from the left; Ham appeared from the right. The two shook hands in the center to sustained applause, and CNN's Tom Foreman took up his moderating duties.

Ham had won the coin toss backstage and so stepped to his lectern to deliver brief opening remarks. "Creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era," he declared, blasting modern textbooks for "imposing the religion of atheism" on students.

"We're teaching people to think critically!" he said. "It's the creationists who should be teaching the kids out there."

And we were off.

Two kinds of science

Digging in the fossil fields of Colorado or North Dakota, scientists regularly uncover the bones of ancient creatures. No one doubts the existence of the bones themselves; they lie on the ground for anyone to observe or weigh or photograph. But in which animal did the bones originate? How long ago did that animal live? What did it look like? One of Ham's favorite lines is that the past "doesn't come with tags"—so the prehistory of a stegosaurus thigh bone has to be interpreted by scientists, who use their positions in the present to reconstruct the past.

For mainstream scientists, this is simply an obvious statement of our existential position. Until a real-life Dr. Emmett "Doc" Brown finds a way to power a Delorean with a 1.21 gigawatt flux capacitor in order to shoot someone back through time to observe the flaring-forth of the Universe, the formation of the Earth, or the origins of life, or the prehistoric past can't be known except by interpretation. Indeed, this isn't true only of prehistory; as Nye tried to emphasize, forensic scientists routinely use what they know of nature's laws to reconstruct past events like murders.

For Ham, though, science is broken into two categories, "observational" and "historical," and only observational science is trustworthy. In the initial 30 minute presentation of his position, Ham hammered the point home.

"You don't observe the past directly," he said. "You weren't there."

Ham spoke with the polish of a man who has covered this ground a hundred times before, has heard every objection, and has a smooth answer ready for each one.

In Ham's world, only changes that we can observe directly are the proper domain of science. Thus, when confronted with the issue of speciation, Ham readily admits that contemporary lab experiments on fast-breeding creatures like mosquitoes can produce new species. But he says that's simply "micro-evolution" below the family level. He doesn't believe that scientists can observe "macro-evolution," such as the alteration of a lobe-finned fish into a tiger over millions of years.

Because they can't see historical events unfold, scientists must rely on reconstructions of the past. Those might be accurate, but they simply rely on too many "assumptions" for Ham to trust them. When confronted during the debate with evidence from ancient trees which have more rings than there are years on the Adams Sychronological Chart, Ham simply shrugged.

"We didn't see those layers laid down," he said.

To him, the calculus of "one ring, one year" is merely an assumption when it comes to the past—an assumption possibly altered by cataclysmic events such as Noah's flood.

In other words, "historical science" is dubious; we should defer instead to the "observational" account of someone who witnessed all past events: God, said to have left humanity an eyewitness account of the world's creation in the book of Genesis. All historical reconstructions should thus comport with this more accurate observational account.

Mainstream scientists don't recognize this divide between observational and historical ways of knowing (much as they reject Ham's distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution). Dinosaur bones may not come with tags, but neither does observed contemporary reality—think of a doctor presented with a set of patient symptoms, who then has to interpret what she sees in order to arrive at a diagnosis.

Given that the distinction between two kinds of science provides Ham's key reason for accepting the "eyewitness account" of Genesis as a starting point, it was unsurprising to see Nye take generous whacks at the idea. You can't observe the past? "That's what we do in astronomy," said Nye in his opening presentation. Since light takes time to get here, "All we can do in astronomy is look at the past. By the way, you're looking at the past right now."

Those in the present can study the past with confidence, Nye said, because natural laws are generally constant and can be used to extrapolate into the past.

"This idea that you can separate the natural laws of the past from the natural laws you have now is at the heart of our disagreement," Nye said. "For lack of a better word, it's magical. I've appreciated magic since I was a kid, but it's not what we want in mainstream science."

How do scientists know that these natural laws are correctly understood in all their complexity and interplay? What operates as a check on their reconstructions? That's where the predictive power of evolutionary models becomes crucial, Nye said. Those models of the past should generate predictions which can then be verified—or disproved—through observations in the present.

For instance, evolutionary models suggest that land-based tetrapods can all be traced back to primitive, fish-like creatures that first made their way out of the water and onto solid ground—creatures that aren't quite lungfish and yet aren't quite amphibians. For years, there was a big gap in the fossil record around this expected transition. Then, in 2004, a research team found a number of these "fishapods" in the Canadian Arctic.

"Tiktaalik looks like a cross between the primitive fish it lived amongst and the first four-legged animals," wrote the research team as they introduced their discovery to the world.

"What we want in science—science as practiced on the outside—is the ability to predict," said Nye, pointing to the examples of Tiktaalik in biological evolution and the results of the Cosmic Background Explorer mission in cosmology. Mainstream scientific predictions, even those focused on the past, can in fact be tested against reality. So far, however, "Mr. Ham and his worldview does not have this capability," Nye said. "It cannot make predictions and show results."

1229 Reader Comments

....Yes, your correct that science works through theories and test.. so this theory is testable.. but let's pretend it's the 1910's.. and Einstein is just some mad man over in Germany with something called "general relativity theory"

But everyone KNOWS! that Newtonian physics model is the correct model for the universe.. there's just no way some mad man named Einstein can be right about all this.. ...

Asimov writing about exactly this sort of concept. That science was wrong yesterday, and it suddenly right now, so it's OK to assume science is wrong now. When in reality it's about the answer getting more refined over time, even when that results in what *seems* like a totally different theory.

Thank you, Nate, for such a good, balanced article that covered the event so well.

I would like to offer one small correction, though.

Quote:

In Ham's world, only changes that we can observe directly are the proper domain of science. Thus, when confronted with the issue of speciation, Ham readily admits that contemporary lab experiments on fast-breeding creatures like mosquitoes can produce new species. But he says that's simply "micro-evolution" below the family level. He doesn't believe that scientists can observe "macro-evolution," such as the alteration of a lobe-finned fish into a tiger over millions of years.

Ham did not make a micro/macro-evolution distinction in the debate. In fact, the Answers in Genesis website has a page listing arguments creationists should avoid, and that is one of them.

He did, however, draw a distinction, between speciation (i.e., a new species of bird but it's still a bird) and evolution where a new species is a totally different kind of animal (i.e., lizard to bird). But he did not refer to those differences using micro/macro terminology.

Toe-may-toe, toh-mah-toh.

Fancy new label -- same old crap.

While I agree that this is pretty much the same crap with the old terminology dropped, there is one important facet involved. They have changed their argument. In the light of undeniable evidence, they have changed the meaning of 'kind' from species to family. Ham talks about Canidae and Felidae being on the ark and these 'kinds' gave rise to the variation we see today. This is a huge step, really. They now allow for speciation, which they never would have considered 20 years ago. Maybe in another 20, 'kind' will have moved to order or class.

Evolution plugs the discrepancy it finds to time. Creation plugs any discrepancy to the Bible. I'll take the latter.

The Bible doesn't help us create flu vaccines.[Snip]

Does Ars pay you? Because they should. You are a constant voice of reason and provide arguments and evidence with impressive levels of support and documentation. I can only guess at the time you put into research on the various topics you comment on, much less the time committed originally to gain the depth of knowledge required to discuss such topics intelligently.

While many you converse with may not change position due to your arguments, I must imagine any reader with questions on these topics are well served by your responses. What you do truly is a service, and I thank you.

I am concerned at the comments and views held by many evolutionist though on the subject of even having the debate. It seems that many scientists are of the opinion that the creationist ideas aren't even worth the time to smack down. I think the sheer number of people that now believe in creationism should be a clear indication that it is time to come down from the ivory towers and lay low the indignities to human reason. To say that addressing creationism isn't worth the time to argue is a cop-out. Is it not worth teaching children to read and write or do arithmetic? No of course not; it is the duty of the learned to bring science to people because when you don't masses will default to religion and failing religion we default to interesting forms of chaos.

You are conflating two entirely different things. A 'debate' involves two people making their view clear in order to sway the audience opinion. 'bring science to people' is teaching those who have absolutely no clue how a subject such as evolution works.These are two entirely different concepts.

I whole heartedly agree with educating people who dont know anything about evolution, but the fact that someone who is utterly uneducated in the subject feels they have the right to ask scientists come on to their level of ignorance and debate as equals is just absurd.

I wouldnt debate my GP because I am not a doctor. I wouldnt debate legal practice because I am not a lawyer. I wouldnt debate particle physics because I am not a quantum field theorist.Question them yes, but not debate as equals.

Take my physicist example, I set up a museum that says atoms dont exist. (Im making it hard on myself, there is way more evidence for evolution than there is for atoms.) I have no qualifications but make a lot of noise and whether consciously or not deceive a lot of people in to agreeing with me.Do my actions mean I am now on the same level as the quantum field theorist? Does that mean that scientists should have to discuss the subject they have dedicated decades of their lives too with me on an equal level?Does that mean instead of lecturing people on how this works they must instead vie for the opinion of the uneducated through discussions with the delusional?

Well I am one of those uneducated people, and I sure as hell dont want to see the experts who could provide me the papers and evidence for the truth stand side by side with those who have less knowledge than myself, as if that is reasonable and fair.

tl;dr We uneducated have not earnt the right to debate the educated in any field we remain ignorant in.Honestly I think this is blindingly obvious, common sense to most people. Certainly many major denominations and religions have had no issue with this so it is not solely down to religion. So why on Earth are you treating Evolutionary Biology differently on this point? Its baffling.

Thank you, Nate, for such a good, balanced article that covered the event so well.

I would like to offer one small correction, though.

Quote:

In Ham's world, only changes that we can observe directly are the proper domain of science. Thus, when confronted with the issue of speciation, Ham readily admits that contemporary lab experiments on fast-breeding creatures like mosquitoes can produce new species. But he says that's simply "micro-evolution" below the family level. He doesn't believe that scientists can observe "macro-evolution," such as the alteration of a lobe-finned fish into a tiger over millions of years.

Ham did not make a micro/macro-evolution distinction in the debate. In fact, the Answers in Genesis website has a page listing arguments creationists should avoid, and that is one of them.

He did, however, draw a distinction, between speciation (i.e., a new species of bird but it's still a bird) and evolution where a new species is a totally different kind of animal (i.e., lizard to bird). But he did not refer to those differences using micro/macro terminology.

Toe-may-toe, toh-mah-toh.

Fancy new label -- same old crap.

While I agree that this is pretty much the same crap with the old terminology dropped, there is one important facet involved. They have changed their argument. In the light of undeniable evidence, they have changed the meaning of 'kind' from species to family. Ham talks about Canidae and Felidae being on the ark and these 'kinds' gave rise to the variation we see today. This is a huge step, really. They now allow for speciation, which they never would have considered 20 years ago. Maybe in another 20, 'kind' will have moved to order or class.

Baby steps.

Interesting. So now it looks like his 'timeline' matches up with the Cretaceous extinction event as 'the Flood'?

tl;dr We uneducated have not earnt the right to debate the educated in any field we remain ignorant in.Honestly I think this is blindingly obvious, common sense to most people. Certainly many major denominations and religions have had no issue with this so it is not solely down to religion. So why on Earth are you treating Evolutionary Biology differently on this point? Its baffling.

They treat it differently because evolution removes Man from the pedestal of being the special creation of God. We are no longer the important centre of the universe, the children of God, designed and created in His image. Instead, we are nothing more than animals whose rise was the product of non-divine, non-supernatural forces.

If we are not the special creation of God, then how can we have souls? How can we be "saved"? How can be considered the masters of the world? If we were not created in the image of God, then what is God?

Evolution and its implications strikes at the very heart of their belief structure.

Before the debate I made a challenge to myself to clear my mind and try to understand the points from each man. It was a roller coaster of emotion and insight that lasted two hours and I couldn't have paid for its equal at any amusement park. I enjoyed the entertainment very much and thank each participant for their involvement.

I am concerned at the comments and views held by many evolutionist though on the subject of even having the debate. It seems that many scientists are of the opinion that the creationist ideas aren't even worth the time to smack down. I think the sheer number of people that now believe in creationism should be a clear indication that it is time to come down from the ivory towers and lay low the indignities to human reason. To say that addressing creationism isn't worth the time to argue is a cop-out. Is it not worth teaching children to read and write or do arithmetic? No of course not; it is the duty of the learned to bring science to people because when you don't masses will default to religion and failing religion we default to interesting forms of chaos.

I blame academia for their elitist attitudes and not wanting to get dirty with the creationist rabble. It is time to get in the trenches and stave of this impending dark age. It is now an epidemic that needs addressing akin to a polio outbreak. Sometimes you just need to create a bunch of ignorance vaccine, and make it a mission to wipe it out.

And I blame decades of the right trying to paint smart people as being 'Elitist' rather than just smarter. Trying to paint anyone interested in the complexity of issues as some kind of huckster. Perhaps if the right and the small but vocal minority of Christians could get over their inferiority complex then we wouldn't be stuck with the US being paralysed by these absurd debates on issues that simply don't exist in the rest of the civilised world.

As has been stated already - you cannot 'debate' anyone whose basic premise is "it's here in this infallible book from the year 60AD". To steal the quote, it is literally the highest form of appeal to (non-existent) authority...

But it *doesn't even make sense* to keep the religious terms. We don't know if this person even exists, and if he did, he wasn't born in year 1, and only a subset of the population even cares about him. So why keep it? Honestly, unless you are super attached to the terms, it shouldn't bother you in the least.

Because it grates on the nerves of normal people when technical adherents feel the need to change names to soothe their own feelings of technical superiority. Sure. Maybe there was no historical Jesus, but everyone knows when BC becomes AD. And every idiot knows that a starfish is not a fish, yet marine experts cluck their tongue when you don't refer to them as sea stars now. There are many examples where technical "experts" feel the burning need to foist their proper nomenclature over onto the unwashed masses common vocabulary. Is it GMT, UTC, or Zulu time now? It's all pointless and self serving.

Waouh .. I can't believe there is still some discussion on that topic in 2014.Poor US, how could creationists justify it is absolutely a no-brainer question in everywhere else in the Western civilisation?For me, it is like grown-ups discussing of the existence of Santa Claus.

I don't really want to hear about it but I am interesting in hearing the contents of it.

But, yes.. I'll give you some contents.. it's under the keywords "metaphysical" and also did anyone look at the video I provided? (just wondering?) I mean your welcome to disagree with it.. but isn't it cool you have a rotaryengine in your head?

The sad thing is that by this logic, fuck doctors. He shouldn't believe in medicine because he bible days that believe and you shall be cured. All people believing in the bible should give up scientific inventions like phones and the Internet, etc.

Edited typo

I BELIEVE, damn it, that one day soon Kate Beckinsale will show up at work, sweep me off my size-12 hiking boots, and make me her man-slave for the rest of both of our lives.

The sad thing is that by this logic, fuck doctors. He shouldn't believe in medicine because he bible days that believe and you shall be cured. All people believing in the bible should give up scientific inventions like phones and the Internet, etc.

Edited typo

I BELIEVE, damn it, that one day soon Kate Beckinsale will show up at work, sweep me off my size-12 hiking boots, and make me her man-slave for the rest of both of our lives.

You just watch... It'll happen. Oh yes, it'll happen.

If it does happen let us know. I shall then begin believing it too - in the name of replicability (the cornerstone of science!) - leading her to show up at my work, etc etc - so I guess enjoy it while you can?

I wonder what Ham's frame of mind is when he attempts to argue with what can only be seen as avoidance and misdirection... Can he honestly believe in the his "if nobody saw it it can't be true" thing, while CLEARLY nobody was there to see what happened in Genesis? Radio carbon dating is flawed? He "believes" when many in the Church--- past & present--- in positions of authority have clearly stated that literal interpretation is wrong.

I honestly can't get beyond this kind of selective believe non-sense...

Why not have the Flat Earth Society represented too? The numbers of people who believe this AIG nonsense is scary. Between the fanatical religious nut jobs and the NSA totalitarians this once great nation does not stand a chance. I am just glad that I am old enough that I probably won't live long enough to see the worst of it.

I am concerned at the comments and views held by many evolutionist though on the subject of even having the debate. It seems that many scientists are of the opinion that the creationist ideas aren't even worth the time to smack down. I think the sheer number of people that now believe in creationism should be a clear indication that it is time to come down from the ivory towers and lay low the indignities to human reason. To say that addressing creationism isn't worth the time to argue is a cop-out. Is it not worth teaching children to read and write or do arithmetic? No of course not; it is the duty of the learned to bring science to people because when you don't masses will default to religion and failing religion we default to interesting forms of chaos.

First of all, I object to the term evolutionist. I don't know what apologetics seminar you picked that up on, but those of us that haven't been subjected to the same religious propaganda as yourself refer to people who study evolution by their proper name - biologists, or more specifically evolutionary biologists.

As was very clearly stated in the article, the reason that the scientific community has come to a sort of consensus that it's a bad idea to to debate with creationists of any sort, is that the debate itself gives the creationists unwarranted legitimacy, much in the same way that serious scientists don't debate with psychics, fortune tellers or proponents of pastafarianism.

And where on earth did you get the idea that it's the duty of the learned to educate the ignorant? You are responsible for your own learning, nobody else. Spoon feeding the 'truth' to those who don't want to learn on their own is something we leave for the religious institutions.

I just can't understand this arguement. But, on that same token, I guess other's don't get science. Nearby in Arkansas is a National park where diamonds rise to the surface and visitors and dig for and keep any they find. A coworker of mine gave it a shot and was telling us how the diamonds have been rising up from the magma for some millions of years but "that's kinda dumb because the Earth wasn't made THAT long ago." I almost died... they do really exist.

In ten pages of comments I'm sure someone has mentioned this, but I find it incredibly funny that a man who professes to believe the word of the Bible as literal truth is planning to build a replica of the Tower of Babel, a monument that angered God so much he cursed everyone who took part in its creation.

I'm sure someone has pointed this out, in one way or another, but the better version of Nye's rather weak arguments from translation is the argument from *transmission*. Even the briefest analysis of the manuscript history of the Bible will expose two things:

1) that what we now call 'the Bible' was written by many individuals and committees revising and redacting one another's work over a long period, not to mention the various disagreements of the New Testament 'witnesses' -- and the same applies to almost any of the individual 'books', which were not even arranged as such originally;2) that the mere admission of the fact of textual transmission turns Ham's own 'historical' argument back on him, which is something others have mentioned, albeit obliquely.

That admission is not a difficult one to get from most Christians; even if they don't know it, the authority of major ecclesiastical scholars and the simplicity of recognising the need for transmission in order fir the text to have survived, and to continue to survive, is easily admitted.

One other thing... debate need not necessarily legitimate a given argument. Accepting any given argument is the fastest path to reductio ad absurdum, which is a win logically and a win satirically.

I'm sure someone has pointed this out, in one way or another, but the better version of Nye's rather weak arguments from translation is the argument from *transmission*. Even the briefest analysis of the manuscript history of the Bible will expose two things:

1) that what we now call 'the Bible' was written by many individuals and committees revising and redacting one another's work over a long period, not to mention the various disagreements of the New Testament 'witnesses' -- and the same applies to almost any of the individual 'books', which were not even arranged as such originally;2) that the mere admission of the fact of textual transmission turns Ham's own 'historical' argument back on him, which is something others have mentioned, albeit obliquely.

That admission is not a difficult one to get from most Christians; even if they don't know it, the authority of major ecclesiastical scholars and the simplicity of recognising the need for transmission in order fir the text to have survived, and to continue to survive, is easily admitted.

One other thing... debate need not necessarily legitimate a given argument. Accepting any given argument is the fastest path to reductio ad absurdum, which is a win logically and a win satirically.

You're not going to get anywhere with that line of argument (as valid and interesting as it is) because Ham and his ilk are simply not interested. Ham made clear that he regards the Bible as "the word of God," full stop -- this is axiomatic to him. If it's in the book, then God said it directly.

To be fair to creationists, not all of them are "Young Earth" creationists sharing this view. A remarkable number of Christians do seem to believe that the Bible is, somehow, the "word of God," sans translations, transcriptions and abstraction layers. Nye could have directed his arguments in this direction, but he chose not to (probably for good reasons).

And where on earth did you get the idea that it's the duty of the learned to educate the ignorant? You are responsible for your own learning, nobody else. Spoon feeding the 'truth' to those who don't want to learn on their own is something we leave for the religious institutions.

No. That is the duty and the entire purpose of public education. Autodidacticism is the surest guarantee that we'll be back to cavorting druids, death by stoning and dung for breakfast faster than you can say 'Martianus Capella'.

You're not going to get anywhere with that line of argument (as valid and interesting as it is) because Ham and his ilk are simply not interested. Ham made clear that he regards the Bible as "the word of God," full stop -- this is axiomatic to him. If it's in the book, then God said it directly.

Well, he can throw that card up at any argument, pro or con. That's the beauty of it. He proposes an axiom. One accepts it, then simply asks, "How have we received his word?" Deny nothing. The absurdity exposes itself.

I'm not suggesting Nye should have done this; he simply isn't knowledgeable. But the real debate here, as NA implied, needs to happen between ecclesiastical scholars and biblical literalists, which is an argument in which literalists can be trumped by even the most vaguely charismatic speaker.

You're not going to get anywhere with that line of argument (as valid and interesting as it is) because Ham and his ilk are simply not interested. Ham made clear that he regards the Bible as "the word of God," full stop -- this is axiomatic to him. If it's in the book, then God said it directly.

Well, he can throw that card up at any argument, pro or con. That's the beauty of it. He proposes an axiom. One accepts it, then simply asks, "How have we received his word?" Deny nothing. The absurdity exposes itself.

That's the point. That's the only point, in the end; it's how this whole thing works. It's the reason that 98% of listeners/viewers (including creationists) believe that Nye "won the debate" and yet won't change their minds: Ham has shrewdly connected his own position directly to the central question of the listener's faith in God.

To question what Ham is saying is to edge into apostasy; therefore the debate doesn't matter. It's not that anyone wins or loses, or that the debate isn't a debate -- it's worse. It's like a criminal trial with a corrupt judge who's guaranteed to set aside the guilty verdict no matter what.

I completely agree that questioning what Ham (I always want to add an extra 'm' to honour Beckett) says is useless -- merely for different reasons. If the leopard won't change his spots, you can at least get everyone (OK, some) seeing that there's a predatory cat lurking behind the camouflage.

I'm just not sure I agree that *any* engagement with creationists is a bad thing. That leads up a situation where they're the only ones doing the talking, and it is never a good idea to let a fool have the floor for too long.

I completely agree that questioning what Ham (I always want to add an extra 'm' to honour Beckett) says is useless -- merely for different reasons. If the leopard won't change his spots, you can at least get everyone (OK, some) seeing that there's a predatory cat lurking behind the camouflage.

I'm just not sure I agree that *any* engagement with creationists is a bad thing. That leads up a situation where they're the only ones doing the talking, and it is never a good idea to let a fool have the floor for too long.

Oh, I didn't mean to create the impression that I disapprove of the debate or that I join the ranks of those who (like Dawson and the late Gould) believe that creationists should never be engaged. I think the debate was useful, especially insofar as it prompts discussions like this one on Ars. I was just stating out the particular rhetorical device that makes Ham immune to even the most reasonable arguments about the text of the bible.

I am concerned at the comments and views held by many evolutionist though on the subject of even having the debate. It seems that many scientists are of the opinion that the creationist ideas aren't even worth the time to smack down. I think the sheer number of people that now believe in creationism should be a clear indication that it is time to come down from the ivory towers and lay low the indignities to human reason. To say that addressing creationism isn't worth the time to argue is a cop-out. Is it not worth teaching children to read and write or do arithmetic? No of course not; it is the duty of the learned to bring science to people because when you don't masses will default to religion and failing religion we default to interesting forms of chaos.

First of all, I object to the term evolutionist. I don't know what apologetics seminar you picked that up on, but those of us that haven't been subjected to the same religious propaganda as yourself refer to people who study evolution by their proper name - biologists, or more specifically evolutionary biologists.

As was very clearly stated in the article, the reason that the scientific community has come to a sort of consensus that it's a bad idea to to debate with creationists of any sort, is that the debate itself gives the creationists unwarranted legitimacy, much in the same way that serious scientists don't debate with psychics, fortune tellers or proponents of pastafarianism.

And where on earth did you get the idea that it's the duty of the learned to educate the ignorant? You are responsible for your own learning, nobody else. Spoon feeding the 'truth' to those who don't want to learn on their own is something we leave for the religious institutions.

I agree except for the duty to educate others part. Society has invested in us by educating us, providing us with labs, fellowships, etc. Not everyone is cut out to be a scientist. We have a duty --- up to certain limits of course--- to 'pay it forward' and serve as expert advisors and teachers to the communities we came from. If we don't try to educate the masses, then we can't blame them if they become creationists and cut off our funding, or otherwise make life difficult.

Getting a science education is not just a selfish pursuit to get your share of the pie and screw everybody else.

From the end of this article: "Next up for Ham's message is a 500 foot long reproduction of Noah's Ark, to be built just off I-75, 45 minutes south of the Creation Museum at a cost of $25 million dollars (only $14 million has been raised so far; Slate recently charged that the project is being funded by junk bonds). Many millions are needed to flesh out the project's future phases, which include a replica Tower of Babel, a walled city, and a first-century village."

Granted it's just a replica, but the God from the original doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to care about the intent of the act as much as the act itself.

The sad thing is that by this logic, fuck doctors. He shouldn't believe in medicine because he bible days that believe and you shall be cured. All people believing in the bible should give up scoeniic inventions like phones and the Internet, etc.

As a long time Ars lurker, this kind of comment is what is the most irritating about this site, which is supposed to facilitate intelligent discussion. It's rated (+12|-1) right now yet is full of strawman arguments (and typos, but whatever).

Some assorted comments on it: - 'this logic' is a very vague term and mostly unclear. - The conclusion of the second sentence doesn't logically follow the premise. - The premise of the second sentence is also invalid: Luke, a writer or two major books in the New Testament, was a physician, which implies that medicine was viewed favorably by early Christians. - The third sentence comes out of nowhere and makes absolutely no sense.

A productive discussion is beneficial to everyone, this kind of discourse, however, is asinine.

While the argument may not have been construction as I would have (and have before), I don't think dismissing it as "asinine" is an adequate response. The crux of the problem that I have with Creationists in any name they go by now is that they are selectively rejecting science because it is too troublesome for them to reconcile with their religious beliefs. I take offense at a person picking and choosing which areas of science they claim are horse-pooh when all branches of science are based off the same practices and methods.

Where one paleontologist discovered plesiosaur bones by accident on a guided dig, Pasteur discovered a massively crucial medical process through his guided studies. What guided both were unified scientific principles of research, testing, and learning from past scientific endeavors. The fact that the two fields were in no way related other than both being forms of science is inconsequential.

This is why I take offense to Creationists choosing which forms of modern science they reject and which they embrace. All the forms of scientific progress that has made modern pharmaceuticals so good at prolonging people's lives and eliminating devastating diseases are (often) employed by the same people that say geologists and paleontologists are lying and wrong with their fossil records and carbon dating. Science is science, and science is guided by unified principles. I'm sick of people separating them out however is most convenient to themselves for their personal well-fare and belief systems and castigating those forms of science that does not directly benefit their health or beliefs. It's petty, narrow-minded, and uneducated in my view. All things that should be discouraged in an allegedly enlightened society such as ours where science has benefited the populous as a whole. Not to mention that it just seems flat out disrespectful and ungrateful.

So basically my challenge to those who reject fossil records and evolution as a whole is: put your money where your mouth is and stop picking only one or two manifestations of scientific study. Reject them all and show that you truly are willing to live whole-hog by your religious beliefs, or publicly admit that you are behaving as a selective leech on the scientific progress offered as a whole.

From the end of this article: "Next up for Ham's message is a 500 foot long reproduction of Noah's Ark, to be built just off I-75, 45 minutes south of the Creation Museum at a cost of $25 million dollars (only $14 million has been raised so far; Slate recently charged that the project is being funded by junk bonds). Many millions are needed to flesh out the project's future phases, which include a replica Tower of Babel, a walled city, and a first-century village."

Granted it's just a replica, but the God from the original doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to care about the intent of the act as much as the act itself.

Ouch. Hey, it has been three days since I read the article

No, I'd agree with you sentiment. But... a replica of something we have no idea what was built (sticking to the Bible as the source and inspiration)? Surely even they would describe it as an artists impression?

Why exactly is it that no one seems to have read Genesis 1 and 2 before debating with these people? It's absolutely provable using no more than the Bible that these cannot be factual evidence since they are two separate creation stories. Don't believe me? Just read them.

In Genesis 1:God creates fowls and sea creatures on the 5th day.God creates animals and then man on the 6th day.

In Genesis 2:Inexplicably (unless you are already aware they are separate creation stories) suddenly focuses on the story of creating man (on the 6th day?) without any real transition. He creates man, and then beasts including fowls AFTERWARD.

If we assume that Genesis 1 and 2 are actual retellings of history and are irrefutable fact, we are left with an unexplainable contradiction. Ergo, with the Bible alone we know that these cannot be actual retellings of history since they are clearly two different creation stories.

I'm not going to suggest that they do not hold some sort of significance or meaning beyond its literal merit, but there you have it.

Actually there are a great number of the religious who know of the very thing that you mention. It seems that several books of common knowledge have been left out of the bible over the centuries, and these apocryphal texts did tell of things like why woman was created twice....

And where on earth did you get the idea that it's the duty of the learned to educate the ignorant? You are responsible for your own learning, nobody else. Spoon feeding the 'truth' to those who don't want to learn on their own is something we leave for the religious institutions.

No. That is the duty and the entire purpose of public education. Autodidacticism is the surest guarantee that we'll be back to cavorting druids, death by stoning and dung for breakfast faster than you can say 'Martianus Capella'.

Obviously I didn't mean to suggest that we shouldn't have public education or that everyone should be autodidact. The point I was making is that you have to take responsibility for your own learning. No amount of education, public or private, can teach you something you don't want to learn. We can try to motivate you, we can try to give you the facts, but ultimately it's your responsibility to open your mind and put in the required effort.